Monthly Archives: February 2013

Senator Lindsey Graham gave an emotional speech on the floor of the United States Senate, Thursday, about the negative impact sequestration will have on the United States military. He noted we have already committed to reducing defense spending by nearly $500 billion over ten years and the additional military spending cuts called for under sequestration would add another $600 billion on top of that figure, totaling 1.1 trillion dollars, which would essentially gut the finest military in the world. “What we’re doing in this sequestration proposal is ill-conceived, dangerous and despicable”, he railed.

“What came out of Bob Woodward’s reporting and common sense, Graham began, “is that this idea came out of the White House and the White House thought that it had created a penalty clause for Super Committee failure called sequestration, which would take 600 billion out of the 1.2 trillion out of the Defense Dept ….and 6oo billion out of non defense that would put pressure on the Super Committee to get the right result”

“Well, we’re going to spend 45 trillion over the next decade. The question”, he continued, “is can we save 1.2 trillion without destroying the Defense Dept. and raising taxes? Yes we could if we tried…”

He went on to make an important point that many Republicans, (including me) have been missing about the money being cut from defense.

“2/3 of the budget (almost)is exempt from sequestration”, he noted….

“When you hear Republicans say, we can find 85 billion out of 3.5 trillion dollars in spending – to my Republican colleagues – stop saying that. That’s not accurate. We’re not cutting 85 billion out 3.5 trillion dollars. We’re cutting 85 billion out of 1.3 or `1.2 and 1/2 because the budget Act took of the table 2/3 from the government from getting cut.”

“I guess that the Republican party feels like pell grants and food stamps and FAA and home mortgage interest deduction and all this other stuff in the federal government should be shielded, but those who have been fighting the war that protects us all from radical Islam should be on the chopping block. Ronald Reagan should be rolling over in his grave.Shame on everybody who thought this was a good idea on our side. I can’t tell you how disgusted I am with the concept that when it comes time to cut because a bunch of politicians couldn’t reach an agreement, we fire the soldiers and keep the politicians and every other social program intact – put half the cuts on those who are fighting the war.
So next time you go on a military base — good luck with looking those men and women in the eye —because I don’t see how you could. I don’t see how you go onto a military base or see somebody at the airport and shake their hand and thank them for their service given the fact that you’ve taken the Defense Dept, and made it something not so special anymore.”

Senator Graham really seemed on the verge of tears at this point.

You could say he was not pleased with the Republican leadership, but he had even tougher words for the president.

“You are the Commander Chief of the United States”, he began, “they trust you, they need you, your primary goal is to take care of those in uniform and their families. Mr. President, you have let them down……How you could have considered this as an acceptable outcome, just makes me sick to my stomach.”

“How any Commander in Chief could have been comfortable with the idea that if the Super Committee fails we’re going to gut the military…and you haven’t lifted a finger in the last year to do anything about it – you finally go down to the Naval base down in VA after the election a few days before this kicks in. To me, this is a pathetic leadership by the Commander in Chief , this is an abandonment of the Republican party’s belief in peace through strength, this is the low point of my time in the US Congress….”

“I cannot tell you how ashamed I am of what we’ve done to those who have been busting their butt for the last eleven years, have been deployed time and time again, and to their families. The thanks you get from the President of the United States and Congress is we’re going to put your way of life on the chopping block. God, if we can’t do any better than that all of us should be fired”, he said. “Fire the politicians, not the soldiers.”

Like this:

Wow, this is really disturbing.We have an Attorney General who was held in criminal contempt of Congress, and who holds the United States Congress that did so, equally in contempt. He says that being held in contempt of Congress is no biggie because he doesn’t respect the 255 House members (including 17 Democrats) who voted in favor of it.

In a wide-ranging, exclusive interview Wednesday, ABC News’ Pierre Thomas asked Holder how he reacted when House Republicans voted with 17 Democrats to hold him in contempt of Congress last June over ATF’s “Fast and Furious” gun scandal.

“It’s something that I think was unfortunate,” Holder said. “I think it’s a result of this kind of partisan sport that I think we engage in here in Washington far too often.”

Holder said the votes it didn’t bother him, considering who cast them.

“But I have to tell you that for me to really be affected by what happened, I’d have to have respect for the people who voted in that way,” Holder told ABC News. “And I didn’t, so it didn’t have that huge an impact on me.”

Like this:

Speaker Boehner called Senate Democrats failure to pass a single Sequester replacement bill in 15 months, embarrassing, in a press release, today.

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement after the Democratic-controlled Senate failed to pass legislation replacing President Obama’s sequester:

“It’s embarrassing that after 15 months Senate Democrats still haven’t passed a single sequester replacement bill. The American people deserve better. Republicans in the House passed legislation almost a year ago in May, and again in December, to avert the president’s sequester and help put us on a path to a balanced budget. Now that today’s political stunt to raise taxes has failed, it’s time for the president and Senate Democrats to do the hard work that is necessary to pass a bill in the Senate so we can begin to resolve this issue.”

He told Senate Democrats to do their jobs and pass a bill, noting that as of right now, the revenue issue is closed. He said, “any revenues generated by closing loopholes should be used to lower rates across the board for American families.”

Now, via News Ninja,it looks like Obama’s starting to walk back some of his spastic hair-on-fire dire predictions regarding the sequester. He ain’t getting his tax hikes. These cuts are going to happen – now what?

Lanny Davis, who served under President Bill Clinton as special counsel to the White House, told Washington, D.C.’s WMAL this morning that the Obama White House had threatened the Washington Times over his column, warning that the Times would suffer limited access to White House officials and might have its White House credentials revoked. Davis, a centrist Democrat, is sometimes critical of the Obama administration’s policies.

Davis was speaking with Breitbart News editor Larry O’Connor, who co-hosts a morning show on WMAL. Davis said he had never spoken publicly about the threats before, but they seemed relevant after the White House told legendary reporter Bob Woodward that he would “regret” insisting that the White House had come up with the idea of the budget sequester, which President Barack Obama is now urging Congress urgently to revoke.

The White House has vehemently denied the claim in Woodward’s book, though the claim has been in the public domain for several months since the publication of the book, The Price of Politics, in mid-2012. Democrats and a slew of sympathetic liberal journalists have joined the White House in attacking Woodward–a remarkable turn of events given his elite status in the media as part of the duo that brought down President Richard Nixon in 1973.

As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.

Schmaler’s story is typical of this gang. Her shouting, threats, and rants at reporters would have rendered her unqualified to serve in the press shop of a state department of agriculture.

But there is something unique about the Obama White House. It borrows tactics and standards from the darker figures in history — threats, projection, unrepentant dishonesty, towering columns in stadiums, and even bloody mayhem like Fast and Furious hatched for political purposes.

Speaking last week, Maddow aired footage of McCain addressing a constituent whose son was killed last year at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, who spoke to Senator McCain about her belief that “These assault weapons allow a shooter to fire many rounds without having to reload. These weapons do not belong on our streets.”

Maddow then played McCain’s edited comments, which show him saying, “I can tell you right now you need some straight talk. That assault weapons ban will not pass the congress of the United States.”

McCain tells the grieving mom, “First of all, can I say thank you and God bless . . . Our hearts and our prayers go out to you and your family. “I just had a town hall meeting yesterday in Tucson and the people who were affected by the terrible, tragic shooting there,” McCain continues. “I met with [retired astronaut] Mark Kelly and [his wife, former Arizona Rep.] Gabby Giffords in my office last week on this issue — as you know they are becoming, understandably, great advocates on this issue, and I will continue that conversation. “I can tell you right now — you need some straight talk — that assault weapons ban will not pass the Congress of the United States. It won’t. Now I owe it to you to give you my opinion because the majority of the members of Congress don’t support it . . . All I can tell you is . . . I will continue to work with the bipartisan group on both sides of the aisle representing all of America, not just California, and we will try to come up with ways to prevent this from happening again . . .

–

–

The only reason one would air the edited version of that clip would be to paint Senator McCain as an “insensitive and abrasive” boob. The longer clip shows that he demonstrated the proper sensitivity to the woman. It’s kind of hard to demonize someone who begins with, “ thank you and God bless . . . Our hearts and our prayers go out to you and your family.” But because he didn’t allow the woman to “Absolute Moral Authority” him into taking a position he’s against, the left pounced. “Absolute Moral Authority” is supposed to cow people into submission, dammit!

–

But instead of cowering, he told her the truth – that the “assault weapons” ban has no chance of passing in Congress. The 2nd Amendment folks applauded that political point, and gun control advocates jeered because they are for the ban.

–

Because MSNBC has been caught airing deceptively edited videos, so much, Maddow decided to preempt criticism with an impressive display of left-wing jiu-jitsu. While pretending to be appalled by McCain’s “insensitivity” in the edited clip, she actually acknowledged that she was taking it out of context.

Like this:

Via Dan Riehl, and the Politico, here’s the entire email from Gene Sperling, economic adviser to the president, and Bob Woodward’s cordial response:

From Gene Sperling to Bob Woodward on Feb. 22, 2013

Bob:

I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today. My bad. I do understand your problems with a couple of our statements in the fall — but feel on the other hand that you focus on a few specific trees that gives a very wrong perception of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.

But I do truly believe you should rethink your comment about saying saying that Potus asking for revenues is moving the goal post. I know you may not believe this, but as a friend, I think you will regret staking out that claim. The idea that the sequester was to force both sides to go back to try at a big or grand barain with a mix of entitlements and revenues (even if there were serious disagreements on composition) was part of the DNA of the thing from the start. It was an accepted part of the understanding — from the start. Really. It was assumed by the Rs on the Supercommittee that came right after: it was assumed in the November-December 2012 negotiations. There may have been big disagreements over rates and ratios — but that it was supposed to be replaced by entitlements and revenues of some form is not controversial. (Indeed, the discretionary savings amount from the Boehner-Obama negotiations were locked in in BCA: the sequester was just designed to force all back to table on entitlements and revenues.)

I agree there are more than one side to our first disagreement, but again think this latter issue is diffferent. Not out to argue and argue on this latter point. Just my sincere advice. Your call obviously.

My apologies again for raising my voice on the call with you. Feel bad about that and truly apologize.

Gene

Almost sounding like a character in The Godfather, Sperling cautions Woodward “As a friend” to rethink his position. He tells him that he thinks Woodward will “regret” his claim.

But he graciously allows at the end of the letter that it’s Woodward’s “call”. What does that mean? Does Bob Woodward, veteran Washington reporter, and consummate insider who has talked to all of the involved parties really need to be told that?

From Woodward to Sperling on Feb. 23, 2013

Gene: You do not ever have to apologize to me. You get wound up because you are making your points and you believe them. This is all part of a serious discussion. I for one welcome a little heat; there should more given the importance. I also welcome your personal advice. I am listening. I know you lived all this. My partial advantage is that I talked extensively with all involved. I am traveling and will try to reach you after 3 pm today. Best, Bob

For his part, Woodward does come off looking slightly two faced in his email response, saying that he welcomed Sperling’s “personal advice”, but giving interviews afterward complaining that the letter made him “very uncomfortable.”